|
I think everyone can agree direct democracy is a really bad idea especially when it affects things such financial inner workings.
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
predicto posted:As someone who owns a San Francisco house purchased in 1992 that has more than quadrupled in value and made me a millionaire while I pay 1/4th of the property tax that my next door neighbor pays and our state slowly crumbles around me, I just want to say thank you to the suckers who voted for Prop 13 back in the day, thinking it would benefit the state. I will never, ever vote to let this windfall benefit go, not in a million years, because I am a greedy rear end in a top hat. Screw young people, screw newcomers to the state, screw the schools which used to be the best in the nation and screw the potholed roads - I got mine. Please source your quotes.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The argument is that somehow prop 13 is putting CA in the poorhouse and it just isn't true. Either you can't read or are being purposefully dense. The argument is that prop 13 disproportionally impacts local governments along with forcing California to rely on less stable income sources (sales tax). That and that prop 13 actually decreases the available home sales stock, furthering the bubbles you decry. etalian posted:I think everyone can agree direct democracy is a really bad idea especially when it affects things such financial inner workings. Someone in just this thread was arguing for more Byzantine "direct democracy" for our cities, that had mandatory meetings. Let that sink in. So alas, there isn't even agreement there.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Not having prop 13 wouldn't have saved us from the bubble. It's definitely distorted the market (to the benefit of people like my mother, who wouldn't be able to pay the taxes on the insane valuation her house has now without being unable to eat), but that bubble was going to get inflated regardless of property taxes. And while it may not be the case in the Bay Area, mostly because your politics are even more fubar than ours, development is going absolutely hog wild again here in SoCal. I've never seen so many cranes over LA before in my life, and there's construction all over OC like its 2003. Of course, nobody can afford to buy any of it, even if they have plenty of equity, because the prices have gotten completely stupid - the existing home supply is extremely limited, nobody is selling - so most buyers are investors and foreigners with suitcases.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
etalian posted:I think everyone can agree direct democracy is a really bad idea especially when it affects things such financial inner workings. redscare posted:so most buyers are investors
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 08:32
|
|
redscare posted:Not having prop 13 wouldn't have saved us from the bubble. It's definitely distorted the market (to the benefit of people like my mother, who wouldn't be able to pay the taxes on the insane valuation her house has now without being unable to eat), but that bubble was going to get inflated regardless of property taxes. As crazy as it sounds but the repeal of Prop13 would instantly lower the valuation because people would start selling, more demand etc. If the market ruled surpreme (all hail the market) people that live in houses that appriciated a lot would move to a cheaper place at some point with a sweet profit. What is so wrong about that?
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The argument is that somehow prop 13 is putting CA in the poorhouse and it just isn't true. I don't recall anyone claiming that. Prop 13 definitely reduces the ability of the state to be flexible during a fiscal crisis with revenue sources, but that in and of itself is not "putting CA in the poorhouse," and I don't think anyone's tried to argue that, if Prop 13 had been repealed ten years ago or something, we'd somehow have completely avoided the fiscal crisis the state suffered during the last ten+ years. Trabisnikof posted:Either you can't read or are being purposefully dense. The argument is that prop 13 disproportionally impacts local governments along with forcing California to rely on less stable income sources (sales tax). And (especially) capital gains tax. The housing crisis was accompanied by a credit crisis and a stock market slump. These things combined to drastically reduce capital gains tax revenue for the state. By keeping average real property taxes artificially low, Prop 13 pushed the state to seek a greater proportion of its revenues from income, capital gains, and sales taxes, all of which are more volatile and tend to drop precipitously during a recession... which is precisely the time when the state needs to be spending more (as economic stimulus). redscare posted:Not having prop 13 wouldn't have saved us from the bubble. I don't think anyone has argued that proposition 13 caused the housing bubble. That would be a very stupid thing to argue, since Prop 13 is a California thing and the housing bubble was nationwide. Not having prop 13 obviously didn't save Florida from the bubble. I do think there's a strong argument that prop 13 exacerbates the bubble by artificially restricting supply, which amplifies the affect speculators have on prices. More speculators (cash investors, mostly) competing for fewer available properties (because people with below-market tax rates are disincentivized from selling even at a large profit) crowd out owner-occupy home buyers (who mostly need to get mortgages, which are less competitive than cash offers) and create bidding wars that push up prices. But since prop 13 has persisted for decades now, and there's no sign of it going away, I'm not sure it's proper to even think of this as part of a "bubble". The restriction on supply is sustained indefinitely. Even the crash in 08/09 couldn't suppress California prices for very long, and they've been rising again since 2011, marking (especially in the Bay Area) an earlier recovery than most other parts of the country. The free market is not the best greatest thing. Regulation is critical to protect people from the ravenous blind monster that is unfettered capitalism. But prop 13 is an example of shortsighted regulation that produced more problems than it solved, and was also co-opted from the beginning by business interests. So it actually serves to feed the beast, while not actually helping poor and lower middle class people (as a group, even if it does help a minority of individual members of that group disproportionately). Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 09:26 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:As crazy as it sounds but the repeal of Prop13 would instantly lower the valuation because people would start selling, more demand etc. If you don't see the harm in forcing people to sell their homes with taxes they can't afford so the wealthy can swoop in and send the poors out further east I don't know what to tell you. It's amazing that everyone becomes a libertarian when they get a chance to gently caress someone over and profit out of the deal.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
Politically a full repeal of Prop 13 just isn't feasible. Regardless of the merits too many people hold the same beliefs or will be swayed by the arguments that natetimm is making. Excluding commercial property and removing the 2/3s majority budgetary constraints are individually probably a lot more tenable. There's an effort to get Prop 13 reform on the 2016 ballot: http://www.evolve-ca.org/petition_13 http://ucsa.org/our-work/ucsa-campaigns/fund-the-uc/ I'd suggest doing whatever you can to help that effort. Hopefully it doesn't get bogged down in the usual splitter infighting that progressives love to engage in.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Politically a full repeal of Prop 13 just isn't feasible. Regardless of the merits too many people hold the same beliefs or will be swayed by the arguments that natetimm is making. Excluding commercial property and removing the 2/3s majority budgetary constraints are individually probably a lot more tenable. There's an effort to get Prop 13 reform on the 2016 ballot: Yeah would be wiser to take the eating the elephant approach and target reforms such as the generous corporate loopholes instead.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
natetimm posted:If you don't see the harm in forcing people to sell their homes with taxes they can't afford so the wealthy can swoop in and send the poors out further east I don't know what to tell you. It's amazing that everyone becomes a libertarian when they get a chance to gently caress someone over and profit out of the deal. You've never actually proven the link between an increase in property tax rates and people being forced to leave their homes. You know why I think this is BS? Because all the other states in this Union manage to keep old people in their homes while having property taxes that rise with long-term home values. Besides, as many people in this thread noted, there are several ways to implement a change in property tax values that would completely eliminate this harm (e.g. ending prop 13 for all new sales, limiting the property tax increase based on income, providing property tax exceptions for the elderly are just 3 examples). Meanwhile Prop 13 does make it harder for middle class families to afford to buy a home in the first place, while incentivizing speculation and rentals. Also, can you make a single post without adding a cutesy strawman attack at the end?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You've never actually proven the link between an increase in property tax rates and people being forced to leave their homes. You know why I think this is BS? Because all the other states in this Union manage to keep old people in their homes while having property taxes that rise with long-term home values. If you can find me another state where people are sitting on 400k houses they bought for 40k in the 70s where the median income for the state is about 30-40k a year then maybe you can use that state as a comparison. If you think getting rid of prop 13 is going to lower house prices, increase inventory and make it easier for people to buy homes, how to you expect to do that without forcing other people to sell?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
natetimm posted:If you can find me another state where people are sitting on 400k houses they bought for 40k in the 70s where the median income for the state is about 30-40k a year then maybe you can use that state as a comparison. It is incredibly dishonest to use medium income for the whole population to argue about the income of homeowners. Homeowners generally make more than renters. Because it would stop providing a tax incentive to landlords and speculative investors to just sit on properties. Look at the cash sales rate, those aren't middle income families. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:15 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It is incredibly dishonest to use medium income for the whole population to argue about the income of homeowners Landlords and speculative investors are more likely to be able to eat the tax increase. In any case, the law could be written or amended to account for those situations. I've said before I'm not against making it no longer apply to commercial or industrial properties, and that includes homes owned by investment firms or landlords.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It is incredibly dishonest to use medium income for the whole population to argue about the income of homeowners. Homeowners generally make more than renters. You also can't just use median home price as a stand-in for what Grandma's house is worth. A house built in 1995 cannot have been owned for 30 years. So if you want statistics on the average valuation of the grandma-eviction houses natetimm is worried about, you need to first find the median price of homes that were built and purchased over 30 years ago, and continuously occupied by their owner for that time. Average square footage of new homes has risen steadily, so homes over 30 years old tend to be smaller on average. They are also on average closer to city centers, which may push values up, or down, depending on desirability of that city center. Then you need to find what the actual new tax rate would be. Repealing prop 13 doesn't necessarily happen in a vacuum: if you do a revenue-neutral repeal, you'd simultaneously pull 13 and lower the state's fixed tax rate. Then you'd have to pro-rate the impact of the new tax rate based on those figures, against the rest of the putative granny's tax burden, before you can compare it to the tax burden an equivalent grandma had in other high-property-value state, say Flordia, New Hampshire, or Washington DC. This is obviously not easy to do. So instead, we can just make assertions about how disastrous it would be, without any actually useful data to inform those assertions. natetimm posted:Landlords and speculative investors are more likely to be able to eat the tax increase. In any case, the law could be written or amended to account for those situations. I've said before I'm not against making it no longer apply to commercial or industrial properties, and that includes homes owned by investment firms or landlords. Landlords and "speculative investors" which includes both landlords and owner-occupiers can't necessarily eat a tax increase. Landlords can be presumed to pass on increased costs to their tenants in the form of increased rents, and a higher tax burden may simply be counterbalanced by a proportionally lower valuation of the property, if we assume that investors do a rational total-cost-of-ownership calculation before deciding what they're willing to pay for a home. And "commercial and industrial" very specifically does not include homes of any kind. Homes are divided among owner-occupied dwellings and non-owner occupied (rentals); and among these, subdivided further by single-family vs. multi-family. You will be hard-pressed to find statistics that lump non-owner-occupied housing in with commercial and industrial real estate, only excluding owner-occupied. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 21:47 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
predicto posted:As someone who owns a San Francisco house purchased in 1992 that has more than quadrupled in value and made me a millionaire while I pay 1/4th of the property tax that my next door neighbor pays and our state slowly crumbles around me, I just want to say thank you to the suckers who voted for Prop 13 back in the day, thinking it would benefit the state. I will never, ever vote to let this windfall benefit go, not in a million years, because I am a greedy rear end in a top hat. Screw young people, screw newcomers to the state, screw the schools which used to be the best in the nation and screw the potholed roads - I got mine. In case it wasn't clear, this post was not intended to be taken seriously. I do own a house in San Francisco that I purchased in 1992, and I do pay 1/4th the property tax of my next door neighbor. I am lucky as hell. Other than that, I was mocking the idea that Prop 13 is fair or good or reasonable in any way. I would vote to repeal it or modify it if I could, even though it would affect my personal finances. But very few homeowners would do that. They live their lives having other people carry more of the tax burden than they do, and not surprisingly, they aren't going to vote to change that. The starving granny squeezed out of her home argument is the most vacuous Frank Luntz bullshit ever invented, but that's the way these things are sold to the suckers. There's a reason that no other state has Prop 13, and not surprisingly, no other state has the hosed up finances that California has.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
natetimm posted:If you don't see the harm in forcing people to sell their homes with taxes they can't afford so the wealthy can swoop in and send the poors out further east I don't know what to tell you. It's amazing that everyone becomes a libertarian when they get a chance to gently caress someone over and profit out of the deal. It's cute that you think you are being progressive while defending the most archetypical of all Orange Country Howard Jarvis/Paul Gann conserva-greed principles.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
etalian posted:I think everyone can agree direct democracy is a really bad idea especially when it affects things such financial inner workings. Its a really bad idea period. At least the way we do it out here, where laws created by proposition cannot be amended by the Legislature in any way.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:You also can't just use median home price as a stand-in for what Grandma's house is worth. A house built in 1995 cannot have been owned for 30 years. So if you want statistics on the average valuation of the grandma-eviction houses natetimm is worried about, you need to first find the median price of homes that were built and purchased over 30 years ago, and continuously occupied by their owner for that time. One of several quality posts by Leperflesh. There are other possible solutions. You could have a "poor granny" exemption based on actual income and assets, so that the few actual poor grannies out there don't get pushed out of their homes, while the rich-as-all-gently caress grannies and everyone else like me actually pays a reasonable property tax.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
predicto posted:In case it wasn't clear, this post was not intended to be taken seriously. I'm also a homeowner, although only since 2009. So far, prop 13 hasn't helped me - my taxes were actually lowered drastically in 2010, as Contra Costa County did a thing where they assessed values and if they were lower, they temporarily lowered your taxes to compensate - but I expect to begin benefiting next year, as my house is now worth more than I paid for it and the county should figure that out with the next assessment. I think it should be possible to convince homeowners to vote to repeal or reform 13, but it would depend on convincing them - especially newer home-buyers - that they're actually being hurt financially in the long run by it. Voters are generally unsophisticated and respond more to appeals to emotion (like the grandma story) than to tables of statistics and facts.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Texas has a series of homestead exemptions to take the bite out of its high property tax rates (typically 2-3%) with additional exemptions available for seniors.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
This discussion has enlightened me, i.e. California's budget is dysfunctional not because of stereotypical liberal "overspending" but quite the opposite. I find it ironic, especially since Fox News will point to our terrible schools and associate it with welfare, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Telesphorus posted:This discussion has enlightened me, i.e. California's budget is dysfunctional not because of stereotypical liberal "overspending" but quite the opposite. I find it ironic, especially since Fox News will point to our terrible schools and associate it with welfare, etc. the 2/3s majority required to pass a budget has a lot to do with the state's budget problems too.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
The biggest reason our budget is hosed (especially during recessions) is because the voters have enacted dozens of constitutional amendments which require spending on X Y and Z, while the legislature was hamstrung for decades by a supermajority requirement to raise taxes. I think we finally got rid of the supermajority thing recently - and also established a supermajority of democrats after redistricting got rid of some of the worst gerrymandering - so things have eased up a bit. But most of the relief has come from economic recovery, and we'll still probably be hosed again when we hit the next recession. California's hype as a superliberal paradise is massively overstated. We were a red state for decades, and only switched to solidly blue in the 1990s. We elected republican governors even more recently than that (the last one was Schwarzenegger). While we have some of the most liberal counties in the country, we also have some of the most conservative. Orange County is a longstanding fiercely republican stronghold, and a highly influential one. California has led the nation in environmental protection laws, particularly with CARB - but much of that was possible because of how bad the LA area smog had gotten. So bad that bipartisan support for air quality regulation was possible. Our decision to completely ban oil drilling off the coast is also as much due to NIMBYism as it is due to environmentalism. Bitter Republican pundits hate California mostly because they hate Hollywood, and secondarily because they hate gun control. They also hate women, so it's intolerable for Nancy Pelosi to be the democratic house leader - a San Francisco Liberal. We also have two women senators, including Dianne "assault rifle ban" Feinstein. Nevermind that Feinstein is actually pretty conservative, she was once a mayor of San Francisco so she must be evil. They also really really hate gays, and San Francisco is obviously where all the gay people live. Ultra-liberal, successful, wealthy, beautiful, temperate-climate San Francisco. What could be more symbolic of the failure of Liberal ideology than the AIDS-ridden sodomy capital of the West? Surely any moment now we will suffer our much-deserved comeuppance as our tree-hugging immoral liberal policies bring down our state around our heads. So California's budget crisis is obviously the first sign of that self-caused apocalypse. It can't possibly be caused by a variety of complex factors, and it must definitely be apocalyptically bad, because otherwise that might imply that the world's sixth-largest economy is actually a beautiful, successful, growing, attractive state whose citizens benefit from its social tolerance, welfare safety-net, business regulations, environmental protections, and all that other liberal claptrap. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 22:38 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:the 2/3s majority required to pass a budget has a lot to do with the state's budget problems too. Luckily that is no longer the case. First good initiative I can ever remember (of course it was repealing a bad prior initiative).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Telesphorus posted:This discussion has enlightened me, i.e. California's budget is dysfunctional not because of stereotypical liberal "overspending" but quite the opposite. I find it ironic, especially since Fox News will point to our terrible schools and associate it with welfare, etc. California has just about the fewest state employees per capita of any state in the nation. Its schools, roads and courts are poorly funded. Oh, and don't believe any statistics you see from "The Tax Foundation." They are a business organization dedicated to cutting taxes, and manipulate and overstate every report they issue.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
natetimm posted:If you can find me another state where people are sitting on 400k houses they bought for 40k in the 70s where the median income for the state is about 30-40k a year then maybe you can use that state as a comparison. Wanted to get back to this, because it looks like Hawaii fits the criteria. Per capita money income in past 12 months (2012 dollars):2008-2012 $29,227 [source] Median home value: $499k [source] Hawaii historical home values, adjusted to 2000 dollars: [source] pre:State 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 California $211,500 $249,800 $167,300 $88,700 $74,400 $57,900 $36,700 Hawaii $272,700 $313,400 $233,800 $134,800 $103,000 $74,400 NA quote:Among states, the District of Columbia (treated as a state in these tabulations) had the highest median home value from 1940 to 1950. In 1960, Hawaii became the leader and has remained there through 2000 (Hawaii became a state in 1959). here's a table of Hawaii's property tax rates for 2013-14.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
California's property situation is hosed, and there is no easy solution to making it better in the the bay area. I make low 50's as a newish teacher and my gf makes low 60's working as one of the barely valued non-engineers for a peninsula tech company. We have come to the conclusion that one (or both) of us is going to have to change careers if we ever want to own a home that isn't in the little Mexico area of San Jose. The insult to injury is that all of the attractive new 3-4 story apartment units being built start at 2500 a month for a fairly modest 2 bedroom...
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
cheese posted:California's property situation is hosed, and there is no easy solution to making it better in the the bay area. I make low 50's as a newish teacher and my gf makes low 60's working as one of the barely valued non-engineers for a peninsula tech company. We have come to the conclusion that one (or both) of us is going to have to change careers if we ever want to own a home that isn't in the little Mexico area of San Jose. The insult to injury is that all of the attractive new 3-4 story apartment units being built start at 2500 a month for a fairly modest 2 bedroom... Obviously just live in
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Obviously just live in
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Not as far as Tracy, but a long commute is in your future if you want to own a home. With an income of 110k gross, you can probably afford a house in various parts of the East Bay. There are still modest homes at around $300k in my neck of the woods, for example (Concord).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Not as far as Tracy, but a long commute is in your future if you want to own a home. With an income of 110k gross, you can probably afford a house in various parts of the East Bay. There are still modest homes at around $300k in my neck of the woods, for example (Concord).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
cheese posted:I've...seen things you people wouldn't believe. The endless headlights of poor bastards driving from Tracy at 5am. 3 hour gridlock commutes burning away a mans soul. All those...moments...will be lost in time, like...tears...in rain. Time...to drive... There are people who work on the same base I do in Coronado that commute from hemet and corona daily. Look at that poo poo on a map it's nuts. Work on the base also starts at 6am. They wake up at 1am to get here to work preshift overtime at 4am.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
predicto posted:Luckily that is no longer the case. The assembly can pass a budget with a simple majority now, but a supermajority is still needed to increase taxes. So they can jigger with the size of the slices, but can't increase the pie.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
cheese posted:The conclusion we came to, after factoring everything in, including potential future volatility in state budgets (teacher layoffs) and the probability of a future "correction" in the tech industry (private sector marketing layoffs), was that home ownership may never be for us. If it becomes a cost/benefits analysis, its hard to justify unless you can be 100% sure you want to be in the same area in 10 or 20 years (and we can't). Except how much will you pay in rent versus the cost of home ownership? Rents are so crazy, you might break even sooner than you think. The NYTs has a good chart designed to make you think more about renting, but tends to do the opposite in the bay: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
I am curious about more info on prop 13. I'm for it, not because I'm informed, but because the only times I've encountered prop 13 discussion is when right wing lunatics bring it up (n=3) and talk about how terrible it is. I figure if they are a against it, then it is probably a good thing.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I am curious about more info on prop 13. I'm for it, not because I'm informed, but because the only times I've encountered prop 13 discussion is when right wing lunatics bring it up (n=3) and talk about how terrible it is. I figure if they are a against it, then it is probably a good thing. It was basically a part of something called the tax revolt.  Horward Jarvis was basically your typical "pro-business" tax cut activist who was very instrumental in getting prop 13 on the ballot and also served in the state senate as a republican. The main thing that drove prop 13 was the image of the poor grandma getting forced out of her home by big property taxes, not to mention the idea of tax cuts for everyone has lots of appeal to your average voter. The law capped both the max tax assessment increase to 2% per year and also made it illegal to do assessments on yearly basis unless a change of ownership/new construction occurred for both private and corporate property. It doesn't take much of brain to see what it was a really bad idea especially given how it removed one of the pillars of county tax base and gave it over to the state government. It also ended up being a big giveaway to corporations since they could avoid paying more property tax by holding onto the property even after doing big upgrades to the property. Oregon had a similar great tax cap measure which yielded similar lovely results in the long run: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_5_(1990) etalian fucked around with this message at 05:27 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
So why do firebreathers hate it?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:So why do firebreathers hate it? From my experience it's loved by right wing types since it taking taxes which would just get wasted by the greedy local governments. Just overlook how most counties in the USA tend to use a mix of sales tax, property tax and in case of some cities a small income tax to make ends meet. tldr The whole Prop 13 thing was started by your typical "pro-business" republican trying to starve the beast
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Yeah, I don't think I've ever really heard right-wing types talk about overturning Prop 13. Not to say you haven't, but it's a massive benefit for both corporate and wealthy long-term property owners. Consider Disneyland:quote:This data is from the previous study, cited above. In 2004, the bulk of land in Disneyland was taxed at 1975 values, with a tax of 5 cents/square foot. Subsequent Disneyland expansions show land taxed at growing amounts as new properties were acquired, until, in 2002, new property is assessed and taxed at 37 cents/square foot of land. If the under-assessed and under-taxed Disney land were brought up to 2002 values, Disneyland would pay Orange County $4,672,217.74 more per year in tax. This amount is likely to be larger in 2010, because at an increase of 2% per year as permitted by law, the tax difference between the vast amount of property valued at 1975 values becomes even greater. It's not just Disney that benefits; property is only reassessed if a single owner acquires more than 50% of the property. So, if 3 people purchased a commercial property holding company, the land wouldn't be reassessed. Supposedly a number of big commercial transactions have not been reassessed; even when they are each county assesssor has discretion so some properties are covered while some in other counties are not. It's really a huge mess. Source
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 06:02
|
|
